Latest news with #AnnaMoneymaker
Toronto Sun
6 days ago
- Politics
- Toronto Sun
Supreme Court allows Trump to resume Education Department dismantling
Anna Moneymaker/GETTY IMAGES/AFP/File Photo by Anna Moneymaker / GETTY IMAGES/AFP/File WASHINGTON — A divided U.S. Supreme Court gave President Donald Trump the green light on Monday to resume dismantling the Education Department. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account The conservative-dominated court, in an unsigned order, lifted a stay that had been placed by a federal district judge on mass layoffs at the department. The three liberal justices on the nine-member panel dissented. Trump pledged during his White House campaign to eliminate the Education Department, which was created by an act of Congress in 1979, and he moved in March to slash its workforce by nearly half. Trump instructed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to 'put herself out of a job.' Around 20 states joined teachers' unions in challenging the move in court, arguing that the Republican president was violating the principle of separation of powers by encroaching on Congress's prerogatives. In May, District Judge Myong Joun ordered the reinstatement of hundreds of fired Education Department employees. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The Supreme Court lifted the judge's order without explanation, just days after another ruling that cleared the way for Trump to carry out mass firings of federal workers in other government departments. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said in the Education ruling that 'only Congress has the power to abolish the Department.' 'The majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive, but either way the threat to our Constitution's separation of powers is grave,' Sotomayor said. Traditionally, the federal government has had a limited role in education in the United States, with only about 13% of funding for primary and secondary schools coming from federal coffers, the rest being funded by states and local communities. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. But federal funding is invaluable for low-income schools and students with special needs. And the federal government has been essential in enforcing key civil rights protections for students. After returning to the White House in January, Trump directed federal agencies to prepare sweeping workforce reduction plans as part of wider efforts by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — previously headed by Elon Musk — to downsize the government. Trump has moved to fire tens of thousands of government employees and slash programs — targeting diversity initiatives and abolishing the Education Department, the U.S. humanitarian aid agency USAID and others. RECOMMENDED VIDEO Columnists Columnists NFL NHL Golf
Newsweek
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Hispanic Support For Donald Trump's Deportations Surges
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Support for President Donald Trump's deportations has surged among Hispanic voters in the space of two months, according to a new poll. The survey, conducted by polling firm Cygnal between July 1 and 2, revealed that the percentage of Hispanic voters that strongly support the deportation of people in the United States illegally rose by 11 percent between May and July 2025. The poll was conducted on 1,500 people and had a margin of error of +/- 2.51 percent. People deported from the United States disembark a flight in Guatemala City in June. People deported from the United States disembark a flight in Guatemala City in June. Anna Moneymaker/AP Why It Matters The findings come after the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has carried out numerous raids and deportations across the country in recent months. In addition to people living in the country without legal status, immigrants with valid documentation, including green cards and visas, have been detained. Newsweek has revealed dozens of cases involving green card holders and applicants who were swept up in the ICE raids. Trump has also pledged to carry out the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history to tackle illegal immigration and strengthen border security. What To Know The poll found that more than 60 percent of all voters now support deportation of undocumented migrants, with Hispanic voters showing a notable uptick. In contrast, 34.7 percent opposed deportations, and four percent were unsure. Among Hispanic voters, 50 percent supported deportations and 48 percent opposed. There was a seven percent increase in overall support since May among this demographic, with an 11 percent rise among those who said they "strongly support" the policy. Among Black voters, 53 percent supported deportations, while 37 percent opposed. Overall support among this demographic increased by three percent since May. Meanwhile, support among White voters was 65 percent, while 31 percent opposed. Overall support fell by three percent since May. What People Are Saying The Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Newsweek previously:"We encourage all illegal aliens to take control of their departure with the CBP Home App. The United States is offering illegal aliens $1,000 and a free flight to self-deport now. We encourage every person here illegally to take advantage of this offer and reserve the chance to come back to the U.S. the right legal way to live the American dream. If not, you will be arrested and deported without a chance to return." Rebecca Shi, CEO of the American Business Immigration Coalition, said on June 17: "We need Congress and the administration to go further with real solutions, and that's work visas for people who've lived, worked, and pay taxes here."
IOL News
17-06-2025
- Business
- IOL News
Rethinking Leadership: A Diplomatic Reflection on US Global Primacy in a Changing World
In a world increasingly defined by rivalry, Daryl Swanepoel explores the implications of US global primacy and the potential for a cooperative approach to leadership in a multipolar landscape. Image: Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images / AFP By Daryl Swanepoel In recent months, I have found myself increasingly reflecting on the shifting nature of global politics, specifically the intensifying polarisation between the United States and its perceived rivals. The increasingly assertive tone from Washington, the vilification of competing powers and the strategic hardening of positions have given rise to a growing sense of unease. What is driving this renewed emphasis on confrontation and to what end? As someone who believes deeply in the value of cooperation, mutual respect and inclusive progress, I worry that we are witnessing the re-emergence of a Cold War mindset. One that risks undermining the hard-won gains of multilateralism, development cooperation and global solidarity forged in the post-World War II and post-Cold War eras. This article is not written to cast blame or take sides. Not at all. Rather, it is a diplomatic reflection, offered in the spirit of constructive questioning. It is an invitation to consider whether the United States, in its response to rising global competitors, particularly China, might find greater strength not in reasserting dominance, but in reimagining leadership for a multipolar world. The question of economic supremacy: Zero-sum or shared growth? At the heart of US strategic thinking lies a long-standing belief that being the world's number one economy is essential, not just for domestic prosperity, but for global leadership. This belief is understandable, especially given the remarkable contributions the United States has made to global development, innovation and stability over the past century. However, in today's deeply interconnected world, the notion of absolute economic dominance may no longer be the most rational or productive aspiration. Global prosperity increasingly depends on collaboration, mutual resilience and inclusive growth. Nations benefit when others succeed. A more prosperous China, India, Brazil or South Africa, for instance, can become valuable partners in trade, climate action and technological progress. If the primary concern is the well-being of ordinary Americans, it may be worth asking whether the US economy truly requires global supremacy or whether a competitive, but cooperative international environment would better serve national interests. After all, many high-income, high-wellbeing nations have flourished without being number one. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ Military strength and strategic intentions: Security or supremacy? The United States maintains by far the world's most powerful military. Officially, this is framed as a commitment to protecting global peace and defending democratic allies. Yet, as with any great power, questions inevitably arise around intent. Are all military deployments and alliances purely defensive in nature or are they at times a means to maintain strategic dominance? This is not to cast doubt on America's intentions. Rather it is to raise a broader philosophical question: Can lasting peace be achieved through perpetual pre-eminence or does real security come from shared norms and mutual respect among sovereign states? Indeed, the human cost of military overreach is significant, not just for those abroad, but also for American taxpayers and veterans. Might some of these resources be more effectively channelled into serving domestic priorities, such as education, health, infrastructure and innovation, as well as multilateral diplomacy? The Rare Earths race: A case study in strategic anxiety Rare earth elements, crucial for green energy, high-tech manufacturing, and defence, have become a flashpoint in US - China competition. Understandably, the US seeks to secure its supply chains and reduce dependence. But here, too, a distinction should be made: Is the primary goal strategic autonomy or the preservation of industrial dominance? The answer matters, especially when we consider how resource competition can shape global policy. If the priority is sustainability and global equity, international cooperation, including with China, on responsible mining, environmental safeguards and technology sharing may be more ethical and effective than a scramble for control. Self-interest and the ethics of leadership It is fair and expected that nations act in their own interests. But the United States has long aspired to more than that. It has projected itself as a moral leader, a defender of freedom and a steward of international norms. From a global humanistic perspective, this moral leadership is best upheld not through dominance, but through example. That means: Applying human rights principles consistently, regardless of a country's strategic value. Supporting democratic institutions globally without coercion. Championing fair trade, climate finance and technology access for developing nations. The concern, increasingly voiced in academic and diplomatic circles, is that the moral clarity of US leadership may be muddied when values appear to be applied selectively. When the US critiques China's governance, but at the same time maintains close ties with other autocratic states for strategic reasons, the message becomes blurred. Again, this is not a criticism, but a concern that selective advocacy may inadvertently diminish the US's soft power and global legitimacy. China's rise: A threat or a test of adaptability? It is true that China operates under a vastly different political model and is increasingly assertive in its foreign policy. Differences as to the Chinese interpretation of human rights, assertiveness in the South China Sea and digital surveillance are valid and deserve attention. However, China's economic rise is not, in itself, an aggressive act. It reflects long-term planning, population scale and integration into global markets. In many ways, China's development mirrors that of other industrialised nations, only faster. Its growing influence, particularly in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, presents a real challenge to US influence. But is the best response to contain China or to renew US engagement with these regions on more equal, less conditional terms? The Global South increasingly sees China as a viable partner, not necessarily because of ideology, but because of perceived respect and responsiveness. The question I am pondering is whether the United States can respond to this shift not by resisting change, but by reimagining its own global engagement. Toward a shared future At this pivotal moment, the United States has a choice. It can double down on hegemony, viewing China's rise as a zero-sum threat to be countered at all cost. Or it can step into a more mature form of leadership; one that recognises the inevitability of a multipolar world and embraces cooperative stewardship over combative supremacy. This path does not demand retreat. Rather, it calls for confidence. Confidence in America's enduring strengths: its open society, its innovation culture, its civil society and its democratic ideals. Being 'number one' may no longer be the most important metric. Perhaps being first among equals, in ethics, generosity, and global cooperation, will define the most respected and resilient leaders of tomorrow. Conclusion The United States has long stood at the crossroads of power and principle. As global dynamics shift, its greatest strength may lie not in resisting change, but in embracing it with humility, adaptability and renewed moral clarity. The world does not need a guardian, it needs a partner. And there is perhaps no nation better positioned than the United States to lead in that spirit, if it so chooses. * Daryl Swanepoel is the Chief Executive Officer of the Inclusive Society Institute. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
Toronto Sun
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Toronto Sun
JONAH GOLDBERG: Inescapable answer to America's problems? Fix Congress
U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) arrives to a candlelight vigil in honour of Police Week at the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., Tuesday, May 13, 2025. Photo by Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images Pretty much on a daily basis now, I find myself muttering or shouting, 'If only Congress wasn't broken,' or something to that effect. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account I'm happy to acknowledge that our problems have many causes. Still, here's my answer to the question 'What is one thing you would do to solve — or just improve — American politics and America's mounting list of crises?': Fix Congress. Sort of like Balzac's famous line, 'Show me a great fortune, and I'll show you a great crime,' if you show me a big problem, I can make the case that Congress' dysfunction either created the problem or made it worse. This is not a partisan point because the problem has been worsening for decades. But we might as well deal with the problem right now. And right now Congress is controlled by Republicans, and they are controlled by the president. Whatever you think of Donald Trump's various executive orders — I think it's been a mix of the good, the bad and the ugly — the simple fact is that presidents aren't supposed to govern or legislate by diktat. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Love Trump's Bernie Sanders-style executive order to lower the price of drugs? Fine, you should know that it probably won't pass muster in the courts. But even if it does, what is done by executive order can be undone by executive order. If you want price controls or any of his executive fatwas to become the law of the land, they need to be made laws. And only Congress can do that. Except Congress can't, or won't. Which is mostly fine with Trump because he'd often rather have the fight over the issue, and the appearance of royal authority, than do the hard work of getting legislation in and out of Congress. You may have noticed that the president likes to generate controversy and have people believe him when he says stuff like, 'I run the country and the world.' Issuing legally dubious, evanescent executive orders serves both purposes. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Reporters run around covering the orders like Trump has actually done the thing he's said he's done, giving him the headline he craves and fomenting panic among his foes. If and when judges block him, he gets a fresh issue: 'Rogue' judges are standing in his way. For his fans, the issue becomes judges exceeding their authority, not judges preventing Trump from exceeding his. And for fans and foes alike, judges are cast as partisan actors, eroding trust in the judiciary. Broadly speaking, judges aren't supposed to be a check on the executive on most issues. That, too, is Congress' job via the power of the purse. It's also the only branch that can fire a president. But it's proved incapable of that too. Which simply invites presidents to test or ignore the limits on their authority and gripe about 'unelected judges' when stymied. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The proliferation of nationwide judicial injunctions against the executive is a problem. It's been getting worse for decades. But why? Because presidents increasingly try to legislate via executive order — because Congress lets them. Pick almost any issue. Trade? The Constitution gives Congress sole authority to regulate trade. But over the last century, Congress has more or less transferred that authority to the executive branch. Immigration? Making hay with the complexities of the issue helps both parties politically and solving it through reform of the immigration laws is hard and painful. Better to do nothing. The national debt? Congress has successfully followed its own budget process only four times in the last half a century, the last instance was in 1997. And only once — in 1977 — did it manage that on time. Congress instead relies on a slew of ugly stopgaps, continuing resolutions and omnibus bills that put spending on autopilot. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. This isn't just a wonky point about sausage-making. Congress is where politics is supposed to happen. When it fails to absorb political and partisan passions, those passions spill out into institutions not designed to absorb them. The House and the Senate were designed to force consensus across a vast nation with diverse interests. When Congress is working properly, that's an ugly and difficult process (hence the cliche about sausage-making). It involves fact-finding through adversarial hearings, horse-trading and compromise. But the process and the end product have democratic legitimacy. The result earns buy-in from stakeholders and voters because the political fights are public and lengthy, requiring representatives and senators to explain and defend their positions. The bills they pass — laws! — cannot be overturned by presidents or, for the most part, by the courts. Though we're seeing that rule tested nearly daily. The abdication of Congress' role as the arena where political fights happen has turned the House and the Senate into a stew of de facto pundits and lobbyists of the executive branch, which steadily aggrandizes to itself authority not found in the Constitution. In short, when in doubt, blame Congress. Read More Toronto & GTA Editorial Cartoons Sports World Sunshine Girls
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
If You Voted For Trump In 2024, I Want To Hear Your Opinion On This Tariff Business
I was pretty shocked the other day to read about actual price differences caused by tariffs. I've read before about people who've regretted their vote for Trump, but I want to learn specifically about how Trump voters feel about the tariffs —whether they think they're a good idea or not. So, Trump voters, tell me: what is your opinion on these tariffs? Maybe you have a small business (or know somebody with a small business) that will suffer as a result of the tariffs. Tell me about it! Related: Eat At Some Popular Restaurant Chains For A Day And I'll Guess Your Hair Color Perhaps it felt a little insider-trader-ey when Trump posted on social media that "this is a great time to buy" just before he announced a 90-day tariff pause... Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images, CHANDAN KHANNA / AFP via Getty Images ...and then bragged that billionaire friend Charles Schwab made $2.5 billion as a result of the stock market rollercoaster he himself had caused. Related: We'll Reveal Your Most Attractive Feature, But First You Have To Enjoy A Rainbow Of Foods Maybe you had faith that he was surrounded by economic experts, but are now of the opinion that he's just, well, kind of doing whatever he wants, regardless of whether it makes for well-thought-out economic policy. Or perhaps you have faith that tariffs will ultimately enrich the American middle class. If so, I genuinely want to know your thought process! Whatever your opinion, this comment section is the place to let your thoughts fly. I want to hear everything you have to say! Or, if you prefer to remain anonymous, feel free to check out this anonymous comment form. Also in Community: Curate A Summer Pinterest Board To Reveal Your Summer Aesthetic Also in Community: I'm Preeeeeetty Sure I Can Tell If You're A Preteen, Teen, Or An Adult Based On This Quiz Also in Community: Create The Dress Of Your Dreams And We'll Tell You What You're The Goddess Of
